COMMON SENSE \ 


S 


OF 


STATE SOVEREIGNTYISM 

AND 


DNITED STATES SDPEEMACY. 




BY ,T01sr^THA.Nr ISTORCROSS. 

0^... 


Gopies of this pamphlet for sale at the office of the AtIjANTA 
Republican, at $5 per 100, and at the Book Stores in this city, at 
10 cents each. 


ATLANTA, GA.: 

THE ATLANTA REPUBLICAN PRINT. 

1876. 







/o- 'IT 


rr/Ti^ 


min smi 


.PHr.sr movr >-v, t< . 




■^■»V/.nA ‘^/rtVr ,.,rfi., .<f, , 1 ,, , 


■ / 

■ »- "v**? * : 








^ 'V 


■ ■'■»"«/..,ft4-: ; 

'•i.f*';.'r■?./•,,;,v . 



COMMON SENSE VIEWS 

_—OF- 

SM SOVEnEIEKTflStl UD UmiEII SIITES SUPBEMia 

DBTT O’. Zg’OXl.OR.OSJS. 


‘‘Ours is a system of government,” says Mr. Calhoun at the 
beginning of his “Discourse on the Constitution and Govern¬ 
ment of the United States,” “compounded of the separate 
governments of several States composing the Union, and of 
one common government, called the Government of the 
United States; the former preceded the latter which wa& 
created by their agency.” 

As if to give greater emphasis to the historical and dialec¬ 
tical claims put forth in the foregoing extract, Hon. Alexan¬ 
der H. Stephens, in the first volume, page 40 , of his “Constitu¬ 
tional View of the War between the States,” says: “The 
Government of the United States was created by the States. 
All its powers are held in trust by delegation from the States.” 

Then again, in his works, volume I, page 162 , Mr. Calhoun 
says: “From all that has been stated, the inference follows 
irresistably, that the Government is federal in contra-distinc¬ 
tion to a iSational Government: a government formed by the 
States, ordained and established by the States; without any 
participation or ageny whatever, on the part of the people, 
regarded in the aggregate, as forming a nation.” 

These paragraphs from these two eminent writers and dia- 
lectitians, not only constitute the main premises of their elab¬ 
orate arguments in favor of their State Sovereignty theory, 
but they comprise the whole grounds and substance of the 
theory in a nut-shell. That is to say, they make the States of 
this Union prior in point of time to the Government of the 
United States, and the Government of the United States the 
creature of the State governments, in contra-distinction to the 
authorship by the people of the United States, and as a cor- 
rollary and by their own logic and conclusions claim that the 
States have the right to nullify, secede from, or otherwise 
overthrow the General Government; and, as another corrol- 
lary, the people of the United States have no right, as a whole, 
or as a part, to prevent such a result, when a State chooses 



r 


i 

thus to acti At leasts this is a comtrioii-seose undei'staticiiiig 
of the whole subject, and these common-sense views are un¬ 
dertaken as an examination of the premises upon which the 
fabric of State Sovereigntyism is reared ; and if the premises 
of the theory, as here presented, are found to be rotten rather 
than sound, fictitious rather than solid, the fabric itself must 
sooner or later fall to the ground. And if time and space 
permit, these views will be extended to the examination of 
" the grounds of United States supremacy. 

To discuss this subject intelligently and come to a clear un¬ 
derstanding, it is first necessary to comment at some length 
upon some side or secondary issues these gentlemen make. 

And first the word Sovereignty. We all know what this 
word sovereignty originally meant, for it signifies abso¬ 
lute and paramount political power, lodged in the hands of 
one person, who was called the sovereign. But, in the early 
stages of the Government of the United States, and during 
the times when the American people were cutting loose 
from the British sovereign, in whose name all legal and po¬ 
litical documents were wont to be drawn up—for the want of 
more appropriate terms, they applied the word sovereignty 
first to the Colonies and then to the States, when they be¬ 
came States, to signify their rights. And thus was confounded 
the word sovereignty with the word rights, the rights of 
the States, or ‘‘State rights.” Nor did they—the demagogues 
of the times—stop here. They soon began to apply the word 
sovereignty to acts of legislation, iudicial decisions, and, fin^ 
ally, each man’s rights, and to each man personally, calling 
the one the sovereign right and the other a sovereign, and 
many were found claiming that each American was a sover¬ 
eign, equal to the sovereign of Great Britain. And thus was 
greatly amplified, and extended the use of the word in this 
country. And the result has been that the champions of 
State Sovereigntyism have had a rich field from which to cull 
the use of the word to prop up their pet theory, and by its am¬ 
bidexterous use, have been able to pull the wool over thousands 
of eyes, which otherwise would have clearly seen and have 
avoided the gulf of anarchy and ruin to which this theory 
leads. But these gentlemen both, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. 
Stephens, have, nevertheless, done the world, and the Ameri¬ 
can world in particular, a favor by claiming for this theory, 
that is, the States, ultimate, absolute and paramount sover¬ 
eignty, and thus placing its claims in the true light, and 
•implifying the controversy, and enabling the friends of Uni¬ 
ted States supremacy to clearly comprehend and squarely 
meet their position. (See Calhoun’s work, volume I, pag^ 


i6i, l9t, 216, 2T0 and 300; Stephens^ ^‘War Between the 
States,’’ volume I, pages 148 and 1D6.) 

In the second place, Mr. Calhoun claims that the Govern^ 
raent of the United States was formed by the Constitution 
of the United States, thus implying and arguing through¬ 
out, as though there was no such government previous 
to 1789, and implying as it were, that the old States had 
an origin so remote, that the knowledge of man runneth 
not to the contrary, although this is afterwards contra¬ 
dicted by him. In answer to this we claim that the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States had its origin and birth in 
1774, which was fifteen years previous to the formation to the 
present Constitution, and that this origin and birth was the 
work of the people, represented in the Congress, which assem¬ 
bled in Philadelphia, 1774. That the government did have 
its birth at that time, morally a,nd politically, de facto and de 
jure seems to be beyond the power of successful contradiction, 
although its name and its organism and the organisms under it 
may have undergone changes. From that time to the persent 
there has been no lapse of its binding influence and authority, 
or cessation of functionaries. To say that it did not have its 
origin at that time, and that it had it afterwards, would be 
like saying that a man has his origin or birth when he passes 
from childhood to manhood. And then again, to place its 
origin in 1789, would be tantamount to saying that the United 
States were without a government for fifteen years. 

So too, with the States of this Union, the materials for 
their creation were in existence before their birth as States, 
but they did not become States in theory or name, until they 
were styled States by some competent authority, or were or¬ 
ganized as States, no more than the people and members 
of the Congress constituted a Government of the United 
States before they organized such a society. To call the 
American Colonies States before they were organized or 
named as States, would be calling the materials ot a plow or 
wagon a plow or a wagon before they were united or fastened 
together. A State originally meant an organism with abso¬ 
lute power, with the right of making war, peace, alliances, 
treaties and the like with other States, none of which attri¬ 
butes these our American States ever claimed, possessed or 
exercised except when in rebellion. The very title of State 
was given to the American Colonics as a matter of honor or 
compliment rather than a matter of power, but that the Colo¬ 
nies were not and could not be States even in the American 
sense of the word, until they were named as such, or organ¬ 
ized as such, is clear from general observation and meaning 


d 

language, and the fact that the Declaration of Independ-^ 
ance^ an essentially logical document, frequently calls them 
Colonies; but says they ought to he States. Had the Congress 
or the people intended to give the States the rights and pow¬ 
ers of the Ancient Greek, or any other States in the original 
meaning of the title, they would, instead of declaring their 
independence of Great Britain, as a whole, and by one united 
and simultaneous act, have said to each Colony, declare your 
independence each for yourself, and then you can enter into a 
compact, one with another, as the Greek States were accus¬ 
tomed to do, and, break them when they pleased. As it was, 
had the Congress styled the Colonies provinces, departments, 
or cantons, their relations, their rights, and their prerogatives 
would have been precisely the same as they were, and still 
are, under the name of States. 

CITIZENSHIP. 

In the third place, these gentlemen contend there is no such 
a character in this country as a citizen of the United States. 
Tliey do not say there are no citizens of the counties, towns, 
or parishes, but only there are no citizens of the United States, 
and that citizenship belongs exclusively to the States. How 
to say nothing of the recognition by the United States of citi¬ 
zenship in the Constitution, and the power given to naturalize 
aliens as such, or the people of the District of Columbia, or 
the Territories of the United States, it would seem very queer 
when John Smith and Sam Jones should call on the Collector 
at Savannah for a protection or a passport in a foreign coun¬ 
try, if the Collector should insert in them the words citizens 
of Georgia instead of the words citizens of the United States. 
If they should accept such, and afterwards find themselves 
pressed into the British navy, or the German array, they 
would likely be very sad that they could not expunge the word 
Georgia and insert in its stead the word United States. 

But the truth is these gentlemen saw the hollowness and 
transparency of their ultimate, absolute and paramount State 
Sovereigntyisra unless they could by some device supply the 
State Government with people exclusively their own. They 
saw that unless they could do this they would be setting up a 
sort of scare crow aristocracy or a privileged class, with no 
body of peasantry to support them, and hence the subtle argu¬ 
ment to depopulate Uncle Sam’s dominion, and claim the 
entire inhabitants for the States. Some such an argument as 
this may have held good when the Israelites were departing 
from Egypt, but it will neither satisfy or console John Smith 
and Sam Jones when they embark again as sailors, or the 


1 



7 


universal Yankee nation on its tramps from one State or Ter¬ 
ritory to another. 

CENTRALISM AND CONSOLIDATION. 

In the next place, these gentlemen make a great noise about 
Centralism and consolidation, just as if any government wor¬ 
thy the name did not require a concentration and consialia- 
tion of the sentiments, talents, patriotism, laws and adminis¬ 
tration, to enable it to stand against the ambition, depravity 
and machinations of mankind,—^just as if a concentration and 
consolidation of these elements and powers were not neces¬ 
sary to any civil government, to enable it to establish justice, 
ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty 
to its people, and that too under a republican form of gov¬ 
ernment. And just as if republican freemen were not com¬ 
petent to institute checks and balances, national and local, 
moral and legal, legislative and judicial, to counteract the 
tendency of those in power to oppression. If they are not, 
then indeed are mankind doomed to be the slaves of glittering 
aristocracy and the pomp and rapacity of royalty, or the 
scourge of rampant demagogueism, local avarice and ambi¬ 
tion, forever. 

Whoever heard of a civil government worth its vast cost, 
which could not at any moment put a stop to insurrection or 
any other acts of treason and disturbance. The question 
among honest and patriotic men has never been as to whether 
a civil government shall be strong or weak, but as to whether 
in concentrating and consolidating its necessary powers, the 
honesty, the wisdom, the morality and the patriotism of the 
land are to comprise its functionaries. We all know that no 
people can exist in peace and happiness, without a strong and 
stable government. And we may say no republican form of 
government can be too strong to be good, or too good to be 
strong. The great trouble has been, and is ever likely to be, 
with this kind of government, that it is too weak and frail, 
and that in times of tranquility its strength is undermined and 
frittered away so as to unfit it for the storms and floods liable 
to come upon it. This was the dread of the Fathers of the 
Constitution, and their fears have been partially realized, 
while the experience of the world is that a republican govern¬ 
ment without concentration and consolidation of sentiment, 
law and physical force cannot stand. A civil government is, 
and should be, something more than a moral suasion society. 

VOTING. 

Another collateral poipt upon which these gentlemen place 


/ 

/ 


$ 


much stress,is the fact that in the early stages of the Government 
the delegates voted by States instead of voting as individuals. 
This question was raised on the first day of the Congress of 
17Y4, but owing to the danger the country was in, and the 
fact that the smaller Colonies were well distributed among 
the larger ones, Georgia being then small, in the South, Mary¬ 
land and Delaware midway, and Rhode Island in the New 
England clump, the issue was not pressed. Norjcould it with 
much force have been pressed, as the people at large rather 
than the Colonial Governments were represented, and the la¬ 
bors and cares were so pressing upon the Congress, they had no 
time or opportunity to rectify the rule once admitted. But 
that the American people, as a whole, did not aprove of it, is 
abundantly demonstrated by its abolition in the adoption of 
the new Constitution, 1789. And here we may notice that 
the two Senators were assigned to each State under the Consti¬ 
tution on similar grounds; but for the still better reason that 
the members of the other House were to be in proportion to 
population, and all, both Senators and Representatives, were 
votey?(9r capita. 

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND CAUSES. 

Physicians have been in the habit of dissecting bodies for 
hundreds of years to find out the functions and springs of 
human energies and diseases, in order than they may be the 
more skillful in administering to human wants. The chemist 
analyzes the soil, the climate, and the fruits which grow there¬ 
on, that he may the better] direct human toil it its efforts to 
procure food. So we, to understand the functions of civil 
government, must analyze, so far as we may, the sentiments, 
the needs, and the principles of action, which enter into and 
compose its .existence, in order that we may better understand 
and perpetuate its machinery. A few words must, therefore, 
be devoted to this point. 

The American Colonies had all been founded by ardent 
lovers of civil liberty, and mainly exiles from religious and 
political oppression. The Colonists were, in the main, of the 
Christian faith, and mostly Protestants and dissenters from 
rigid and despotic ecclesiastical rule. They believed in the 
Bible, as the book of moral and religious truth, and the en¬ 
lightened understanding of mankind as its interpreter rather 
than one man authority. They were also, in the main, lovers 
of science and knowledge, yet they were adventurous and en¬ 
terprising to a high degree. The early settlers comprehended 
the physical and geographical features of the country they 
had chosen for their homes. They saw it skirted on one side 


9 


bj a placid sea, adapted to commerce, and on the other by 
vast lakes not less grand and inviting, and that the territory 
between, although large, was so intersected by rivers and val- 
lies, mountains and plains, resources and capacities as to fit it 
to be the abode of a numerous, prosperous and united people, 
and that they were of a race and leinage which must one day 
possess and rule it. They, in the main, spoke one language, 
and had the same literature, the same sciences, the same phi'* 
losophy, the same system of laws, and read the same books 
and followed the same masters in the arts. Their churches 
and their institutions were, in the main, the same, in principle 
and in style; and although they were independent, one .of the 
other, they never failed in cordial intercourse and exchange 
of sentiments, ideas and doctrines. They constantly co-oper¬ 
ated in their labors so as to encourage one another to good 
works, and, although their settlements were at first far apart 
and roads unopened, by way of the sea they kept up constant 
intercommunication. Then again, along this coast, by means 
of the sea, they kept up a constant traffic and exchange of 
commodities, which, despite the mother country and its sov¬ 
ereign, they always kept free and unrestricted, which, in a 
measure, repaid them for the restrictions on their foreign com¬ 
merce by the laws of Britain, and kept them bound in close 
ties of friendship and consanguinity. Their people as to-day 
among the States, changed their domicils at will, and in per" 
feet security from one settlement to another. 

Nor was this all, upon landing upon the shores they met a 
barbarous and degraded race of men, who, although mainly 
destitute and disinclined to adopt civilized arts, still retained 
great powers of combination and martial prowess, but whom 
they saw were destined to be driven out, like the Canaanites 
of old, to give place to a better state of society. With these 
people they everywhere came in conflict, and although they 
could use them to destroy one another, and did often thus 
employ them, they never did turn them against any of their 
own race, and in no case where the settlements were assailed 
did these colonists, from the St. Crox to the Altamaha, fail to 
come to each others aid and support, either by arms or sup¬ 
plies. And in all the wars, and they were many, with the 
French and the Spanish, they stood shoulder to shoulder, each 
taking their share of burdens and dangers, sorrowing to¬ 
gether in times of defeat, and rejoicing together in times of 
victory. 

One hundred and fifty years, or five generations of this 
style of society, could hardly fail, even if the people had been 
aliens at the start, tp cement them as a band of brothers and 
3 


10 


one community., And thus, when the time came for them to 
strike for political independence, and institutions and a gov¬ 
ernment entirely their own, they were of one mind and sunk 
all local jealousies, if any they had, in one great and unani¬ 
mous effort to be free. We are informed that on the passage 
of the stamp act by the British Parliament in 1763, it being 
the first effort at direct taxation of the American people, a 
“general Congress of the Colonies was held, which adopted a 
declaration of American rights. * * * And Colonial as¬ 

semblies adopted similar measures, and popular meetings 
throughout the country, and heated essays ana inflammatory 
pamphlets, served to set the whole country in a flame.’’ And 
we know from that day to the Boston Port Act, the immediate 
cause of theEevolntion, the whole people were animated by a 
spirit of Union and resistance to British tyranny. And hence 
it was, when Patrick Henry stood up on the first day of the 
Congress of 1774, and said : “Bricish oppression has effaced 
the boundaries of the several Colonies; the distinctions be¬ 
tween Yirginians, Pennsylvanians, Hew Yorkers and Hew 
Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an Amer¬ 
ican !” he uttered the sentiments and feelings, and the great 
principle of action, which underlaid and animated the rank 
and file of the entire American people. 

NATIONALITY. 

And here, before coming to the main premises of these 
gentlemen, we must notice another side issue they make, if is¬ 
sue it may be called. That is, on the nationality of the peo¬ 
ple and the nationality of the Government of the United 
States. They have moved, as it were, heaven and earth, and 
exhausted the resources of rhetoric and logic, to prove that 
the people of the United States have no nationality and no 
national government; and that they do not therefore consti¬ 
tute a nation. 

But Mr. Stephens says each State does constitute a nation, 
something we suppose, like the Aboriginal Tribes, from which 
he must have taken the idea. Just as if, not a nation, should 
be born in a day, but a dozen or more of them could be cre¬ 
ated by a few strokes of the pen, and just as if a people of 
the same lineage, the same language, the same religion, the 
same literature, the same laws, the same government, and in 
constant, social and commercial intercourse, marrying and 
intermarrying almost daily, and constantly co-operating in 
wars against alien enemies, with none amongst themselves, 
through five or six generations, could fail to be welded into 
one people and one nationality. They place great stress upon 





11 


the fact that the ColonieB, and after them the States had sepa* 
rate local governments, jurisdictions and the like; just as if 
there ever was, or ever could be a great nation, whether 
under a despotism, an aristocracy, or elective rulers, which 
did not have its departments, provinces or cantons, with their 
local jurisdiction, local legislation and rulers; and just as if 
these destroyed the nationality of the whole? And then 
again, just as if the government over or “ between ” all, with 
the exclusive power of making war and peace, alliances, trea¬ 
ties and compacts with all other nations and people, did not 
constitute a national government! J^o nationality, no na¬ 
tional government, indeed ! What then constitutes a nation¬ 
ality or a national government? Did not the Ancient Grekes 
with their independent and sovereign States, constitute a na¬ 
tionality, and was not their Amphytionic Council called a 
national government? and did they not as a whole, enforce 
the councirs decrees even when some of the States refused to 
be present or participate in the decrees? Do not England, 
Scotland and Wales constitute one nationality? Do not the 
dukedoms, margraves and principalities, with, their local 
rulers and laws, constitute the Italian nation ? Do not the 
same divisions in Germany constitute the German nation? 
Where is the American nationality, the American nation, if 
not in the United States? Verily, these gentlemen ought to 
have informed us what constitutes the characteristics of a 
nation, if they are not found in the United States. But these 
issues in the face and eyes of all that has been said upon them 
will of necessity come up again for further consideration. 

We must^ now proceed to the 

OOMFOSITION AND CHARACTER OF THE CONGRESS OF 1774. 

This Congress had been first suggested by the “ Sons of 
Liberty in the State of iSew York,” and the time and place 
of its meeting, in the State of Massachusetts. In this latter 
state the delegates to the Congress were appointed by a meet¬ 
ing of the citizens in Boston, and here it may be remarked 
that on the same day, the Colonial House of feepresentatives 
had been called together at Salem, by General Gage, the 
Koyal Governor of the Colony. These representatives locked 
the doors of their room, and in great haste passed a resolution 
appointing the time and place, Pliiladelphia, for the Congress 
to meet, and were immediately dissolved by the Governor’s 
secretary. And hence, were it not for the laughableness of 
the theory, it might be claimed that this act constituted the 
American Congress the rightful successors of the British 


12 


Government in the American Colonies, under whose law the 
Massachusetts House of Kepresentatives had met and acted. 
It certainly looks more like it than being the offspring of 
states which had not been born or even conceived in the 
womb of time. 

In Hew York city the delegates were nominated by “the 
committee of correspondence,’’ and afterwards confirmed by 
a vote of the citizens, others were appointed by the people in 
various districts. 

In South Carolina a popular meeting was held in Charles¬ 
ton for the discussion of the questions then agitating the 
whole country, and at the close the delegates oi that state 
were appointed by a vote of the meeting. 

In Maryland the delegates were appointed by a convention 
of the people, hurriedly called for the express purpose, and 
without any connection with the Colonial government. 

In Virginia, on the disolution of the House of Bugesses by 
the Koyal Governor Hun more, because they passed resolu¬ 
tions of sympathy for the people of Boston, the patriotic 
members assembled in a separate building and took steps for 
a convention of the people, which soon assembled and ap- 

S ointed the Virginia delegates, among whom were James 
[adison, Payton Bandolph and Patrick Henry. 

In Pennsylvania the delegates were appointed by meetings 
of the people. 

In Delaware they were appointed by the people of the 
respective counties. Hew Castle, Kent and Sussex, each ap¬ 
pointing its own delegates, as they continued long after to do. 

In Connecticut and perhaps in one or two other Colonies, 
the delegates were appointed by the popular branch of the 
Colonial Legislature. But in no case were they appointed by 
a regular act of the Colonial government. 

Here we have the composition of the Congress of 1774, and 
the beginning or birth of the United Colonies, which became 
the government of the United States, as clearly and distinctly 
as George the Third ever became the government or sover¬ 
eign of Great Britain, and as clearly as his sovereignty ceased 
-in this country from that time. And hence, as we see, it was 
a government formed by the American people as exclusively 
as any case that ever transpired in the world, and the time 
too was nearly two years before a State Government or the 
Declaration of Independence, “passed them from Colonies to 
States” took place, and by which latter act Mr. Calhoun 
himself admits “ they passed from Colonies to States ” {Cal¬ 
houn’s works, voi. 1, pages 124, 136 and 168.) While each 
state government was, and has been formed, on an express or 


13 


implied charter, or eoabliDg act, from the government of the 
United States, as we shall soon see. When these facts are 
established, as they already are in history, what becomes of 
the main premises of these gentlemen as expressed by them¬ 
selves—which is first, priority, and then fatherhood, of the 
general government by the states, now of which had then 
been born or conceived in the womb of time or the conjunc¬ 
tion of events.* 

Let us now give a synopsis of the proceedings of the Con¬ 
gress of 1774, as found in that standard combpilation of Revo¬ 
lutionary History, Elliott’s Debates, vol. 4, page 1, as some 
further proof of facts and relations already set forth. 

“The first congress of delegates chosen and appointed by 
the several Colonies and Provinces in North America, to take 
into consideration the actual situation of the same, and the 
differences subsisting between them and Great Britain, was 
held at Carpenter’s Hall, in the city of Philadelphia, on the 
5th of September, 1774. On that occasion delegates attended 
from New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and 
Providence Plantation, Connecticut, from the city and county 
of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Castle, Kent 
and Sussex, on the Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and from 
South Carolina.” 

Notice here, how the delegates were chosen from the respec¬ 
tive cities, counties, and local departments of several Colonies-.. 

“Payton Randolph was unanimously elected President. 
the Congress, and Charles Thompson unanimously chosen- 
Secretary.” 

Here notice that the two first votes must have been per 
capita, 

“ On the 6th of September, Congress adopted rules in de¬ 
bating and determining questions, each Colony or Province 
had one vote only. Doors to be closed during the time of 
business, and the members to consider themselves under the 
strongest obligations of honor to keep the proceedings secret 
until a majority should direct them to be made public.” 

“At the same time a committee was appointed to state the 
rights of the Colonies in general, the several instances in 
which those rights had been violated or infringed, and the 
means most proper to be pursued to obtain a restoration of 
them.” 

*The main portion of these historical facts are found in Bancroft’s 
History of the United States. Vol. 7. 


/ 



14 


committee was also appointed to examine and report 
the feiBVeral statutes which affected the trade and manufactures 
of the Colonies.” 

“The Congress was opened by prayer, a reverential formal¬ 
ity that was subsequently observed.” 

“ On the 14th of September, delegates from North Carolina 
took their seats.” 

“ On the 19th, it was resolved that the Congress request the 
merchants and others in the several Colonies, not to send to 
Great Britain any orders for goods, and to direct the execu¬ 
tion of all orders already sent to be delayed or suspended 
until the sense of Congress on the means tp be taken for the 
preservation of the liberties of America should be made 
public.” 

“On the 24th, Congress resolved that the delegates would 
confine themselves to jbhe consideration of such rights as had 
been infringed by acts of the British Parliament after the 
year 1763, postponing the further consideration of the general 
state of American rights for a future day.” 

Here observe that American Uherties and American rights 
formed the staple of discussion. 

“On the 2Ttli of September, the Congress unanimously re¬ 
solved that from and after the first of December, 1774, there 
should be no importation in British America from Great 
Britain or Ireland of any goods, wares or merchandize ex¬ 
ported therefrom, and that they should not be used or pur¬ 
chased if imported after that day,” , 

“ On the 30th September, it was further resolved that from 
after the 10th of September, 1775, the exportation of all mer- 
chandisze and every commodity whatsoever, to Great Britan, 
Ireland and the West Indies, ought to cease, unless the griev¬ 
ances of America should be redressed before that time.” 

“Inconsequence of a letter received from the committee 
of Boston, on the 6th of October, Congress on the 7th, re¬ 
solved to appoint a committee to prepare a letter to General 
Gage, representing that the town of Boston and Province of 
Massachusetts Bay were Jconsidered by all America as suffer¬ 
ing in the common cause for their noble and spirited opposi¬ 
tion to the 0 |>pressive acts of Parliament, calculated to de¬ 
prive the American people of their most sacred rights, privi¬ 
leges, etc.” 

“ On the 8th of October, it was resolved that the Congress 
approves the opposition of the inhabitants of Massachusetts 
Bay, to the execution of the obnoxious acts of Parliament, 


and if the same should be attempted to be carried into execu¬ 
tion by force, in such case all America ought to support them 
in this opposition; and on the lOth of October, a letter of re¬ 
monstrance to General Gage, ordered on the Tth, was brought 
in and signed by the President.” 

“ On the 11th, likewise a memorial of the people of British 
America, stating the necessity of adhering to the measures of 
Congress, an address to the people of Great Britan was unani¬ 
mously resolved on.” 

“ On the 14th of October, Congress made a declaration and 
framed resolves relative to the rights and grievances of the 
Colonies.” 

“ On the 20th of October, the non-consumption and non¬ 
exportation agreement was adopted and signed by the Con¬ 
gress. This agreement contained a clause, to discontinue the 
slave trade, and provision not to import East India tea from 
any part of the world. In general they expressed a deter¬ 
mination to suppress luxury, encourage frugality and promote 
domestic manufactures. The agreement was dated the 24th 
day of October.” 

“ On the 2l8t, the address to the people of Great Britain 
was approved, as was the memorial to the British Colonies on 
the same day. * * * * * * * 

“ On the 25th of October, a petition to the King was adopted, 
and was ordered to be enclosed in a letter to the several Col¬ 
ony agents, in order that the same might be presented by 
them to his Majesty, which letter was approved and signed 
by the President on the day following.” \ 

“ October the 20tb, the address of the inhabitants of Quebec 
was adopted and signed. It set forth the rights of the British 
Colonies. Adjourned^ 

This record contains the main acts and doings of the Con¬ 
gress ; but, besides those mentioned, they appointed several 
committees to supervise matters—to see that the resolves were 
observed, and report to the next meeting of Congress. And 
although their acts were, in the'main^ advisory and persua¬ 
sive, rather than mandatop^ no decrees or edicts of king or 
emperor were ever more cneerfully and implicitly obeyed and 
followed by the whole people. ‘ Nor has there been a session 
of Congress since, if v^e except that which adopted the De¬ 
claration of Independence, which was more important in its 
influence on this country and the world at large. Dp to this 
time, the development of sentiment formed a nation in em¬ 
bryo. On this occasion it had its birth, and commenced its 
childhood, whose voice was heard and heeded throughout 


16 


the world. It was the cry of the American people for “the 
liberties of America,” for “American rights,” “their most sa¬ 
cred rights and privileges,” as expressed in the text of these 
proceedings. 

SESSIONS OF 1775-’76. 

Let us now take extracts pertinent to the points in hand 
from the proceedings of the following sessions: 

“1775, on the 10th of May, according to the recommenda¬ 
tion of the preceding Congress, the delegates from the same 
Colonies, with the exception of Ehode island, assembled at 
the State House at Philadelphia, when Peyton Kandolph was a 
second time unanimously elected president, and Charles Thom¬ 
son unanimously chosen secretary. On the 16th day of May, 
Lemuel Ward, a delegate from Rhode Island, appeared and 
took his seat. On the 16th d^ of May, Congress resolved 
itself into a Committee of the Whole on the State of Amer¬ 
ica.” 

********** 

“On the 26th day of May, Congress resolved that the Colo¬ 
nies be immediately put in a state of defence ; that a fresh 
petition to the King, with a view to reconcile differences, be 
prepared ; and that a letter to the people of Canada be re¬ 
ported, soliciting the friendship of the Canadians, calling upon 
them to assert their rights and exhorting them against hostil¬ 
ities.” 

“On May 29th, a committee was appointed to consider the 
best means of establishing posts for conveying letters and in¬ 
telligence through the continent. On the 2nd day of June, 
Congress resolved that no bill of exchange, draught or order 
of any officers in the British army or navy, or their agents, 
or contractors, be received or negotiated, or any money sup¬ 
plied them by any person in America: that no provisions, or 
necessaries of any kind, be furnished or supplied, to or for 
the British army or navy in the Colony of Massachusetts 
Bay: and that no vessel employed in transporting British 
troops to America, or from one part of North America to 
another, or warlike stores or provisions for said troops, be 
freighted or furnished with provisions or other necessaries, un¬ 
til further orders from Congress.” 

“On the 3d of June, Committees were appointed to draw a 
petition to the King, and to prepare addresses to the inhabi¬ 
tants of Great Britain, to the people of Ireland, to bring in 
the draught of the letter to the inhabitante of Jamaica, and. 


17 


to bring in an estimate of the money necessary to be raised 
by the Colonies.” 

^‘On the 9th of June, in consequence of a letter from the 
Convention of Massachusetts Bay, which previously been un¬ 
der consideration. Congress resolved that the Governor and 
Lieutenant Governor of that Colony were to be considered as 
absent, and their offices vacant; and it was recommended to 
the provincial convention to write letters to the inhabitants 
of the several places which were entitled to representation in 
in assembly, requesting them to choose such representatives, 
and that the assembly, when chosen, should elect counsellors, 
and that such assembly or council should exercise the powers 
of government until a governor of his Majesty’s appointment 
would consent to govern the Colony according to its charter.” 

Herein we have the recorded fact of the first charter, or 
enabling act, issued by the Congress for a state or local gov¬ 
ernment, in the place of that granted by the government of 
Great Britain, and in which the most important steps to be 
taken in forming the new local government are laid down by 
the Congress. Truly, this does not look much like States or 
even Colonies creating a general government. But we shall 
see more of such acts presently. 

“On the IJth of June, Congress resolved to raise several 
companies of riflemen, by enlistment, for one year, to serve 
in the American Continental army, established the pay of the 
officers and privates, and appointed a committee to prepare 
rules and regulations for the government of the army.” 

“On the 15th of June, it was resolved that a general should 
be ap])ointed to command all the Continental forces, raised or 
to be raised, for the defence of American liberty; and pro¬ 
ceeding to a choice by ballot, George Washington was unani¬ 
mously elected. On the preceding day it was resolved to 
appoint major generals, brigadier generals, and other officers 
necessary for the organization of a regular army. These 
warlike measures were the result of continued diliberation on 
the state of America and the consequence of the military 

S 'oceedings of the British at Lexington in the province of 
assachusetts Bay. On the 19th of A.pril preceding the 
burning of Charlestown near Boston, and of various indica 
tions on the part of Great Britain of an intention to compel 
the Colonies to submit by force of arms.” 

Ilerein we find the infant government rapidly developing, 
and taking under its charge the highest functions known to 
3 


18 


any government in the world, namely, the charge and control 
of the entire physical forces and powers of the people, and in 
the next place, as we shall see, they take control of the finan¬ 
ces of the people. 

‘‘On the 22nd of June, it was resolved to emit a sum not to 
exceed two millions of Spanish milled dollars, in bills of 
credit for the redemption of which the twelve confederated 
Colonies were pledged. On the 24th of June, a resolution 
was ‘entered into for devising ways and means, to put the 
militia of America in a proper state for defence. On the 30th 
of June, Congress adopted rules and regulations ibr the gov¬ 
ernment of the army.” 

“On the 6th of July, a committee, previously appointed for 
that purpose, brought in a declaration by the representatives 
of the United Colonies of North America setting forth the 
causes and necessity of their taking up arms, which was pub¬ 
lished by General Washington upon his arrival at t!)e camp 
before Boston.” 

“On the 30th of October, two more armed vessels were di¬ 
rected to be fitted for the sea. On the 30th of November, 
Congress resolved that it should be recommended to the pro¬ 
vincial convention of New Hampshire, which had applied for 
advice, to call a full and free representation of the people, and 
to establish such a form of government as would best pro¬ 
mote the happiness of the people, etc., during the continu¬ 
ance of the dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies. 
A similar resolution was entered into in relation of South 
Ca;:olina.” 

On the 4th of December, it was recommended to the con¬ 
vention of Virginia, if found necessary, to establish a liberal 
form of government in that Colony during the continuance of 
the dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies, having 
first called a full and free representation of the people to de¬ 
termine upon it.” 

These are charters or enabling acts for the formation of 
more local governments: one for New Hampshire, one for 
South Carolina. Verily, these facts militate most disastrously 
against the premises and theory of the State Sovercigntyists 
of every name and grade. And here, too, we come to the 
then great and preponderating colony or province of Vir¬ 
ginia, knocking at the door of Congress for liberty to form a 
local government of her own in the place of that granted 
by the sovereign of Britain. This makes four states which 
asked for charters, and probably all except Rhode Island did 


I 


19 


ask and were granted the right in the same way. I say all 
except Rhode Island, for this little State, never very threat¬ 
ening to tlie British lion, had, from the beginning, a charter 
exclusively its own, under which it ‘‘run” itself for a hundred 
and fifty years or more; and under it got up a civil war of 
its own, some thirty years ago, when it finally had to appeal 
to the United States Government to give, or guarantee it, an¬ 
other government, republican in form. And thus confirm¬ 
ing the fact that each and every State government in the 
Union has been formed under a charter or an enabling act, 
in some shape, from the Government of the United States, 
and thus rendering it as impossible for.the Government of 
the United States to have been the creature, or offspring of 
the States of this Union, as for, a parent to be ofi?*spring of the 
children. 

“On the 16th of April it was recommendeded to the Coun¬ 
cil of Safety of Maryland, to cause the person and papers of 
Governor Eden to be seized and secured in consequence of a 
belief that he had been carrying on a correspondence with 
the British ministry, highly dangerous to the liberties of 
America. On the ITth of April a bounty of $8 was allowed 
to the owner of every vessel for each seamanjimportt.d and dis¬ 
charged in American ports over and above the ships’ com¬ 
pany. On tlie (Uh of May, it was that $10,000,000 

sliould be raised for the purpose of carrying on the war for 
the year 1776 and measures were taken for treating with 
the Indians. On the 9th of May a rcsolxition passed for the 
emission of $5,000,000 in the bills of credit in part of the 
$10,000,000 voted for the service of the year 1776. On the 
7th of June, the Declaration of Independence came up for 
consideration.” 

It would seem in order at this point to take up and com¬ 
ment in full upon this great document—the Declaration of 
Independence. But it will best suit the topics now in hand 
to skip a space of time and events of thirteen or fourteen years, 
and call attention to the ratification by the people of the 
present existing Constitution. The mode and manner in 
which that great measure of statesmanship, peace and patri¬ 
otism was accomplished, is certainly worthy of careful and can¬ 
did consideration. 

But let us, before doing this, notice that neither the Gov¬ 
ernment nor the people had contemplated changing the lines 
or restricting the rights, liberties or prerogatives of the States, 
except so far as to improve their condition and relations, and 


20 


thereby enable the people of each State to better promote 
and foster their own local interests. To charge them with 
more, or less than this, would be the height of absurdity and 
nonsense. The people, in Congress assembled, took the Colo¬ 
nies and made States of them, and what was also favora¬ 
ble to republican principles, they found in them counties, dis¬ 
tricts and organisms admirably suited to the exercise of the 
franchise, which is, and ever must be, the fundamental princi¬ 
ple of republican government. To have said to the people 
that they must all come together at one place and on the 
same day to vote, or to have said to them that the people of 
each IState should airassemble and vote at one place, if such 
a rule were possible, would indeed have constituted 
one or several democracies pure and unadultured. But as 
they did not do this, to say that the voice of the peo¬ 
ple as a whole, would or could not bo reached, or that such a 
rule was necessary to enable them to express their will as a 
whole, on any measure, is to contradict common sense and 
the plainest kind of logic; nor would the democratic rule, if 
it were practicable, be as likely to afford so calm and intelli¬ 
gent expression of their wdll, as the plan of state, county and 
district voting then, and still, in vogue. And thus it 
came to pass, that the convention of 'wise statesmen and pa¬ 
triots, who framed the Constitution, instead of referring this 
work back to the State governments for ratification or rejec¬ 
tion, demanded that their work be referred to the peo])lc. 

And here be it remarked, that the old Congress in ordering 
the Convention said—“for the sole and express jmrpose of re¬ 
vising the articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress 
and the several State legislatures, such alterations and pro¬ 
visions, etc.,” and tlie state government also in appointing their 
delegates, expected the work of the federal Coliventioii to be 
referred back to them for approval or rejection. But the 
question was raised in the federal Convention, at an early 
stage, and before the Constitution took sha})e,]as to whether it 
should be referred to the State governments or the people, it: 
independent conventions, and, after long and warm debates, it 
was decided to refer it to the people—that is, to conventions 
of the people called lor the sole and express purjtose, the del¬ 
egates to wJiich were to be elected by the peopde, voting on 
the sole and express question of ratification. Here then we 
have not only an innovation, but as bold and revolutionary 
act of statesmanship, and such, perhaps, as was never before 
attempted by a legislative body; but we have an act at the 
start which unquestionably changed the whole character and 
tenor of the Constitution itself—that is, from a miserable 


21 


confederacy to a government for the people and by the peo¬ 
ple ; for no man “is so blind as not see that if the work of 
the federal convention was to have been referred back to the 
State governments, instead of to the people, it mast have 
been a radically different instrument from the one that was 
presented, or have met with disgraceful defeat. (See Madison 
Papers, Yol. II, pp. 375, 795-796, 1177-1185.) 

It is true the old Congress and the State governments acted 
as agents, both of the federal convention and the people. 
But all this was done at the demand of the people, speaking 
through the usual organs of thought and sentiment. But to 
say, in the face and eyes of these facts, that the states w^ere 
the creators of the constitution, would be like saying tliat the 
clerks and agents are the creators of a railroad, rather than 
the stockholders, or that the states of this Union rather than 
the people, elect the president, and members of the lower 
house of congress. 

With these remarks let us see what the state conventions 
thus called and thus elected, have to say on this very point, 
and, first 


DELAWARE. 

‘‘We the deputies of the people of the Delaware state in 
convention met, having taken in our serious consideration the 
federal constitution proposed and agreed upon by the depu¬ 
ties of the United States in a general convention held at the 
city of Philadelphia, on the 17th day of September, in the 
year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty- 
seven, have approved, assented to, ratified and confirmed, and 
by these presents do in virtue of the power and authority to 
us given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and 
our constituents, fully, freely and entirely approve of, assent 
to, ratify and confirm the said constitution. 

Done in convention at Dover, this seventh day of Decem¬ 
ber, in the year aforesaid, and in the year of tlie independ¬ 
ence of the United States of America, the twelfth. In testi¬ 
mony whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”. . 

In this and one or two other cases the proceedings are short, 
and given entire, while from others the ratifying clauses only 
are selected. But strange as it may seem, Mr. Stephens, in 
his work, gives the entire proceedings of all, with large ex 
tracts from the speeches, commenting largely on every part, 
except the bone and sinew, life and substance, or the true res 
gestae of the action, the part in which “the freemen, the citi- 


22 


2en and the inhabitants” play in the matter. He says in his 
introductory remarks “ In each case, looking first into the 
action of the State, and secondly into the debates where they 
have been pursued, as part of the res gestm^ showing the un¬ 
derstanding of the States, in this ratification, as appears from 
the record ’• And then at the close of this Delaware action, 
he says, In this very act of ratification we see it styled by 
the sovereign (?) people of Delaware the federal constitution. 
Indeed no one can doubt for a moment from the course of the 
delegates in the Philadelphia convention, that the people of 
Delaware understood the constitution as they here style it, to 
be federal in character, and that the soverignty of the State 
was still retained.” 

one can fail to see upon slight reflection the adroitness 
with which these comments are drawn up to fix the readers 
attention on the word “Federal” to the exclusion of every 
other thought, as if the people of Delaware dreamed of noth¬ 
ing else in this their patriotic action; when the truth is, the 
word Federal was, only a matter of course adjective as it has 
been ever since in speaking of the general government, bor¬ 
rowed from the old Articles of Confederation which, as all 
well know were su])erceded by the constitution, an adjective 
like thousands of other words kept in use, when their orginal 
application and meanitig have departed from the minds of 
men. Put he says, “Indeed no one can doubt for a moment 
from the course of her delegates in the Philadelphia conven¬ 
tion, that the ])eople of Delaware understood the constitution 
as they style it, to be tedcral in its character, etc. 

Kow let us see al)oiit “ the course of her delegates,” namely : 
Mr. George Heed, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, Gunning 
Bedfordd, Jr., and John Dickenson, among whom Mr. Reed 
was chief spokesman, and all of whoni signed the constitution 
after it was completed. Here is a quotation from Mr. Reed in 
the said federal convention : 

“Too much attachment is betrayed to State Governments. 
A national government must soon of necessity swallow them 
all up. They will soon be reduced to the mere office of elect¬ 
ing a “National Senate. He v/as against patching up the old 
federal system. It would be like putting new cloth into an 
old garment. The confederation was founded on temporary 
princi})les. It cannot last; it cannot be amended. If'we do 
not establish a good government on new principles, we must 
either go to ruin or have the work to do over again. The 
people at large are wrongly suspected of being adverse to a 
general government. The aversion lies among interested men 


23 


who possess their confidence. [Madison papers^ vol. 7Z, page 

In these views Mr. Broom and Mr. Bassett evidently con¬ 
curred. Mr. Bedfordd seems not to have had any very clear un¬ 
derstanding ot‘ the desire of his constituents. Mr. Dickson 
was a citizen of Pennsylvania, and therefore a supernumerary 
delegate, and the same man who had as delegate from the 
latter State, opposed tlie Declaration of Independence, and 
was the author of the old Articles of Contederation, which, 
if they had not been superceded, would have soon destroyed 
the Union, and perhaps thrown the States back into the hands 
of Britain, or some other European power. He was a roy¬ 
alist throughout the war, and a great admirer ot the British 
Constitution to his death. But the fact that he and all the 
other delegates of Delaware, signed the constitution and her 
convention adopted ratification first of all the States, unani¬ 
mously, and without debate, is proof that the strength of the 
constitution formed a part of the res qestm with the people, 
and would have been adopted by them, had it abolished State 
lines. The use of the adjective federal was unquestionably 
accidental and utterly without meaning in the mind of any 
one. ^To other State used it, although the country was still 
under the Articles of Confederation.” 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

“Be it known unto all men, that we, the delegates of the 
people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in general 
convention assembled, have assented to and ratified, and by 
these presents do, in the name, and by the authority of the 
same people, and for ourselves, assent to and ratify the fore¬ 
going constitution for the United States of America. 

“Done in convention, at Philadelphia, the 12th day of De¬ 
cember, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred 
and eighty-seven, and of the independence of the United 
States the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto sub 
scribed our names.” 

Here the adjective federal is not used, but all was done “in 
the name of the people of Pennsylvania” without even an 
allusion to the State or the State government, and seems to 
have been signed by all the delegates present. Kext 


« 


24 


NEW JERSEY. 

“In convention state of New Jersey— 

“Now be it known that we, the delegates of the state ot 
New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof for the purpose 
aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the 
proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on behalf of the 
peope of New Jersey, agree to and confirm the same, and 
every part thereof. 

“Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the mem¬ 
bers present, this 18th day of December, in the year of our 
Lord 1787, and of the independence of the United States of 
America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto 
subscribed our names.” 

Nor is the adjective “federal” used in these proceedings, 
but they do read “for and on behalf of the people of the said 
state of New Jersey.” All the delegates except two signed 
their names. 


CONNECTICPT. 

“We, the delegates of the people of the said state in gen¬ 
eral convention assembled, pursuant to an act of the legisla¬ 
ture in October last, have assented to and ratified, and by 
these presents do assent to, ratify and adopt the Constitution 
reported by the convention of delegates in Philadelphia on 
the 17th day of September, A.D. 1787, for the United States 
of America. 

“Done in convention this 9th day of January, A.D. 1787. 
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands.” 

This action was agreed to and signed by one hundred and 
twenty-eight members of the convention, and dissented to by 
forty-eight. 


MASSACHUSETTS. 

“‘The convention having impartially discussed and fully 
considered the Constitution for the United States of America, 
reported to Congress by the convention of delegates from the 
United States of America, and submitted to us by a resolu¬ 
tion of the general court of the said Commonwealth, passed 
on the 25th day of October last past, and acknowledging with 
greatful hearts the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the 
Universe in affording the people of the United States, in the 

« 


25 


course of his Providence, an opportunity to deliberately and 
peaceably, without fraud or surprise, of entering into an ex¬ 
plicit and solemn compact with each other by assenting to and 
ratifying a new Constitution in order to form a more perfect 
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquilityi^ provide 
for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and se¬ 
cure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. 

“Done in the name and in behalf of the people of the Com¬ 
monwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify, the , said 
Constitution for the United States of America.” 

Here we find the then obstinate and aristocratic state of 
Massachusetts, speaking and acting like other states “ in the 
name and in behalf of the people.” It was in this state’s rat¬ 
ification that the word “compact” was used of which so much 
handle has been made by these our modern state sovereignty- 
ists and federalists, as favoring their theory. But, by a glance, 
we see that tire word refers to the “people ot the United 
States” “entering into an explicit and solemn^ compact with 
each oth and not the states, as implied by these gentle¬ 
men, thus doubly confirming the fact that the people, and 
not the states, were the creators of this great charter of lib¬ 
erty, peace and good government. 

GEORGIA. 

“Now, know ye that we, the delegates of the people of the 
State of Georgia, in convention met, pursuant to the resolu¬ 
tions of the legislature aforesaid, having taken into our serious 
consideration the said Constitution, have assented to, ratified 
and adopted, and by these presents do, in virtue of the powers 
and authority to ns given by the people of the said state for that 
purpose, for, and in behalf, of ourselves and our constituents, 
fully and entirely consent to,^ratify and adopt the said Con¬ 
stitution. 

“Done in Convention at Augusta, in the said state, on the 
2d day of January, in the year of our Lord 1788, and of the in¬ 
dependence of the United States the twefth. In witness 
whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.” 

No caviling, no division, no use of the word federal, com¬ 
pact or sovereignty, in this state, but all done as “delegates of 
the people of the State of Georgia.” 


4 


26 


MARYLAND. 

“In convention of the delegates of the people of the State 
of Maryland, April 28, 1Y88— 

“We, the delegates of the people of the State of Maryland, 
having fully considered the Constitution of the United States 
of America reported to Congress by the convention of depu¬ 
ties from the United States of America, held in Phil¬ 
adelphia on the 17th day of September, 1787, of which the 
annexed is a copy, and submitted to us by a resolution of the 
general assembly of Maryland in November, 1787, do, for 
ourselves and in the name and on behalf of ‘the people of this 
state, assent to and fully ratify the said Constitution. 

“In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our 
names.” 

Here the mstrument is called by its proper name in full, 
“ The Constitution of the United States of xlmerica,” 
not “the States United” of America, as these gentlemen please 
to nickname the country and government. The action in this 
state seems to have been quite unanimous, notwithstanding 
the herculean efforts of Luther Martin, the then chief of fed¬ 
eralists and State sovereigntyists in the state, to this contrary. 
This gentleman made much noise about State Sovereigntyism 
at the time, but he was left high and dry as a politician and 
statesman by the people. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

“The convention having maturely considered the Constitu¬ 
tion or form of government reported to the Congress by the 
convention of delegates from the United States of America, 
and submitted to them by a resolution of the legislature of 
this state, passed the 17th and 18th days of February last, in 
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure 
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, pro¬ 
mote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty 
to the people of the said United States and their posterity, do, 
in the name and in behalf of the people of this state, hereby 
assent to and ratify the said Constitution. 

“Done in convention the 23d day of May, in the year of 
our Lord 1788, and of the independence of the United States 
of America the twelfth.” 

Nothing could be more simple, frank and straightforward 
than the ratification of this state, “in the name and behalf of 
the people.” In a supplement to the ratification, to suggest 


ail aiiieiiclmeiit oi' two, they use the phase ‘"sovefeignty of th^ 
several states” as synonymous with the rights of the state, 
but in no complaining or factious spirit, and it is the only in¬ 
stance it is believed, in which the word sovereignty is used in 
all these proceedings of the several states. 

NEW HAMPSniKE. 

The ratification of this state was in precisely the same 
words as that of Massachusetts. By referring to the action of 
that state, we will find the form adopted by the convention of 
the people of New Hampshire. 

VIRGINIA. 

“We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected 
in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assem¬ 
bly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely in¬ 
vestigated and discussed the proceedings of the federal con¬ 
vention,, and beingj prepared as well as the most mature de¬ 
liberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, do, in the name 
and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make 
known that the powers granted under the Constitution 
being derived from the people of the United States, 
may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be per¬ 
verted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not 
granted thereby remains with them and at their will; that, 
therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, 
abridged, restrained or modified, b}^ the Congress, by the sen¬ 
ate or house of representatives, acting in any edacity, by the 
President, or any department or officer of the United States, 
except in those instances in which power is given by the Con- 
stitutionj'or those purposes: and that among other essential 
rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press can not be 
cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by any authority 
of the United States. With these impressions, with a sol¬ 
emn appeal to tlie Searcher of all hearts, for the purity of our 
institutions, and, under the conviction that whatsoever im¬ 
perfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be 
examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the 
Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining 
amendments previous to the ratification—we, the delegates, in 
the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do, by these 
presents, assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended 
on the 17th day of September, 1787, by the federal Conven¬ 
tion, for the government of the United States, hereby announ- 


28 


ing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Oanstitii'^ 
tion is binding upon the said people according to an authentic 
copy hereto annexed in tlie words following. [See Constitu¬ 
tion.] 

“Done in Convention this 26th day of June, 1787.” 

Here we find this great central state, the tenth to give in 
her adhesion, after the most able and thorough discussion 
by such men as James Madison, Patrick Henry, George 
Mason, etc., and with the most careful and clear phraseology 
of any, deliberately saying to the people of the state and the 
world at large, “ We (the conventioi!) do, in the name and 
behalf of the j)eople of Virginia, declare and make known 
that the powers granted under the constitution being derived 
from the jy&ople of the United States^ may be resumed by 
them,” etc. Can anything be more autlumtic and worthy 
evidence, as to the origin of the government and the constitu¬ 
tion then going into operation ? Cati anything be found 
more contradictory of the claim set up, that tlie states rather 
than the people created both the government and the consti¬ 
tution? If there is anything or any language more conclusive 
and positive, it has not been promulgated to the world by 
voice or type. But we must ])roceed to the three other 
remaining states; and, first, 

NEW YOKE. 

In the action of tins state, we have to select the ratifying 
clauses from the very lengthy set of resolutions. As Mr. 
Hobert Yates and Mr. dolm Lansing, able and prominent 
delegates from that state, had withdrawn from the federal 
convention, on the grounds that a new constitution was 
adopted, instead of amendments to tlio old one, leaving 
Alexander Hamilton as the only delegate from that state in 
the federal convention, the contest in the New York conven¬ 
tion was very hard and close. The votes were 30 to 27, for 
ratification which passed in the following words, and ‘‘in the 
name and behalf of the peoj)ie.” 

“ We, the delegates of the ]>eo}>le of the State of New York, 
duly elected and met in convention, having maturely consid¬ 
ered the constitutioFi for the Hnited States of America agreed 
toon the IVth day of September, in the year 1787, by the 
convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Common¬ 
wealth of Pennsylvania, (a cojyy whereof ])i’e(;edes the^m 
presents,) and having also sei’iously and deliberate!}" consid- 
ei’ed the present situatiou of the United States, do declare and 
make known:” ****** vf * 

“We, the said delegates in the name and in behalf of hte 




f)eople of the State of New York, do hy these presents assent 
to and ratify tlie said constitution.” * * * * “Done in 

convention at Poughkeepsie,'in tlie county of Dutchess, in 
the State of New York, the 26th day of July, in the year of 
our Lord, 1788.” 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

In August, previous to the above date, a convention liad 
met in North Carolina, which refused to ratify the constitu¬ 
tion on the grounds that “Civil and religions liberty and the 
inalinable rights of the people” were not sufficiently guarded. 
But in January, 1790, another convention assembled and took 
the following action : 

“ Whereas the General Convention which met in Philadel¬ 
phia, in pursuance of a recommendation of Congress did 
recommend to the citizens of the Pnited States a constitution 
or form of government in the following words, namely: 

“ We the people, etc.” * * * * * 

“(Here follows the constitution of the United States ver- 
batum.) 

Resolved^ That this convention in behalf of the freemen, 
citizens and inhabitants of the State of North Carolina do 
adopt and ratify the said constitution and form of govern¬ 
ment. ' ^ 

Done in convention this twenty-first day of November, one 
thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.” 

Here the expression, “to the citizens of the United States” 
and not to the States, is used which of itself is remarkable, 
and then the action closes, “in behalf of the freemen, citi¬ 
zens and inhabitants” and calls the instrument, “a constitu¬ 
tion and form of government,” all of which ex[)ressions are 
highly significant. 

VERMONT. 

About this time Yermoiit having settled her difficulty with 
New York, also called a convention of the people which unani¬ 
mously approved of the constitution and asked for admittance 
into the Union as a State. 

And lastly we come to the plucky and noisey little State of 

RHODE ISLAND, 

Which being under the rule of a faction or an oligarchy, stood 
out nearly three years, until she found the sentiment of “the 
freemen, citizens and inhabitants” of the United States, roll- 


so 


mg over her like a flood, her convention was called, and rath 
flcation was pa'ssed in the following words: 

“ We, the delegates of the ])eoj)le of the State of Rode 
Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in 
convention, liaving maturely considered the constitution for 
the United States of Amercica, agreed to on the 17th day of 
September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty- 
seven, by the convention then assembled at Philadelphia, 
in tlie Oomnionweslth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof pre¬ 
cedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliber¬ 
ately considered the present situation of the State, do declare 
and make known. * * * W'e the said delegates in the 

name and behalf of the peoj)le of the State of Rhode Island 
and Providence Plantations, do by these presents assent to 
and ratify the said constitution. * * * Done in con¬ 

vention at ]S^ew])ort, in the county of Rewport, in the State 
of Rliode Island and Providence Plantations, the twenty-fifth 
day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven 
hundred and ninety, and in the fourteenth year of the Inde¬ 
pendence of tlie United States.” 

Here thun we have in this matter, first the unanimous 
voice of the Federal Convention; second, that of the old 
Congress, then the majority of each State Legislature, and 
finally the conventions of the peojile themselves, confirming 
the declaration in the preamble of the constitution, that 

“We the ])eople of the United States in order to form a 
more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tran¬ 
quility, ])rovide for the cornmon defence, promote the general 
webare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our 
posterity, do ordain and estal)li6h this constitution for the 
United States of America.” 

These remarks and argmnents as has been seen, are drawn 
exclusively from historical records and authentic accounts, 
and the only authentic record and account on the points dis¬ 
cussed, and all of which are directly against the main premises 
of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Stephens in tiieir elaborate arguments 
for State Sovereignty, as quoted and stated by themselves, 
and as quoted at tlie commencement of this paper. If then 
tlu'se historical facts and authentic accounts show, as they 
certainly do, that tlie government of the United States pre¬ 
ceded each and all of tlie, State governments—that this gen¬ 
eral government was the autliur and parent, rather than the 
offspring of the States', and that the people of the whole coun¬ 
try, and as a whole were the creators of this general govern- 


\ 


31 


ment, as they certainly were, and not the States, or the State 
governments, then as a matter of course these gentlemen’s 
premises were imaginnry and fictitious, and however elabor¬ 
ate and ingenious the structure they have raised, must like 
the house built on the sand, fall to the ground, if it has not 
already done so. 


CONCLUSION. 


But before concluding this paper it may be observed that 
the notion, that one or more civil government or state, can form 
or create another government or state e(pial to, or superior to 
itself pr themselves, is utterly destitute of any fouiidation in 
nature, logic or history. All civil governments are traceable, 
so far as man’s agency is concerned, in their origin, to the 
voluntary action of the people over whom they are to exist, 
or to military force, or to both combined, to the exclusion of 
all other human causes. Let us theorize and analyze as we 
may, and this is the conclusion to wliich we must all come to 
in the end. Tin* states of this Union, or what is the same 
thing, the state governn.ents tried, or pretended to try the 
experiment of making a government for the country, under 
the most favoral)ie and pressing circumstances ever witnessed 
on the face of the earth, and signally failed. Nay they barely 
undertook to rem<»del the revolutionary or continental gov¬ 
ernment created by the voluntary action of the people, and 
they came within an a(;e of ruining it and plunging the coun¬ 
try first into anarchy, and then into military despotism. Such, 
too, has been the. end of all other sucli attetnptsof which we have 
any account. When therefore gentlemen talk about one or 
more governments creating another gov^ernment, over, among 
or ‘‘between” themselves, they are talking at)out something 
that is contrary to the nature of man and human societies 
once established. A civil government is and must be a unity, 
“a moral person” with functions, sentiments and interests pe¬ 
culiarly its own, but different from, and destitute of many of 
the traits of men, acting as individuals, and is no more pre¬ 
disposed to part with its rights, powers and iprivileges than a 
belligerent animal in its full health and vigor, and whicdi does 
not yield until some extei'ior force is applied to it, to cause it 
to yield. A confederacy j)roja?r or a confederation of States 
can be formed by States, but is as different frotn a civil gov¬ 
ernment as a dead lion is from a live one, or as a man’s 
portrait is from himself, or the materials of a machine laying 
about loose and a complete machine pro[)ellcd by the ele¬ 
ments of nature. 

Then again, whoever heard of a civil government having a 
constitutional or other right, to construct another govern- 


f 


\ 


32 



nient? certainly no such right, power or provision has ever 
been found in any of our state governments or their constitu¬ 
tions. It is true that the government of the Ijnited States 
has the right to guarantee to each state t re])ubliean foriri of 
government, but it can only give a cliarter or pass an enabling 
act for the people to create a government tor themselves. It 
also gives the peo|)le togethei* with the states, their agents, 
the right and j)Ower to amend thi-ir own eonstitutions, but it 
does not give, even the ])eop1e. the right or power to destroy 
their government. ITnlil these State Sovereignty gentlemen, 
therefore, can show us some eonstitntiomil, or other right, 
ancient or modern, moral or legal for tlie states of th:s Union 
to create a government over, among or l)etweeii themselves 
they, ought to den)r to the ])eople as a‘whole this right 
wIk) unquestionably have, and liave exercised the right and 
the power to do this important work, as plainly and cor.^'lii- 
sively shown in the historical facts ami accounts herein pre¬ 
sented. 

And now, as it will not be inconsistent with these common 
sense views, T subjoin an extract from the decision ot tlie 
Supreme Court ul the United States ot long standing, winch 
appears to cover this very })oint in regard to the States. 

“Every State of tlie Union has its constitution reduced to 
svritten exactitude. A -constitution is tlie form of govern¬ 
ment delineated by the mighty liand of the }) 00 ple, in which 
certain first principles of fundamer»tal law are established. 
The constitntiuii is certain and fixed, it contains the perman¬ 
ent will ot the people; and is the supreme law of the land; it 
is paramount to the power of the legislature, and can be re¬ 
voked or altered only by the power that ?nade it. The life 
giving principle and the dcatli dying stroke, must proceed 
from same liand. The legislatures aie creatures of the con¬ 
stitution, they owe tlieir existence to the constitution, they 
derive their powers from the constitution. It is their com¬ 
mission, and therefore all their acts must be conformable to 
it or they must be void.”—2 Dali. 308. 

It must here be added, that this local sovereignty theory, as 
taught by these gentlemen, and especially by Mr. Calhoun, 
means contempt and hostility to the gejieral government, or 
any supreme government over, among or “ between ” local 
ones, and is a prolific source, and the essence of insurrection, 
rebellion and civil war, thus verifying the great Christian 
precept that “ no man can serve two masters; for either he 
will hate the one and love the other; or else lie will hold to 
the one and despise the other. 




